Clearly the 9 point lead is an outlier - but then we said the same about the YG 7 point lead too.
I think the improvement for Labour is to be expected given:
1. The implosion of the Lib Dems in the last week - this may have pushed more switchers to Labour.
2. The UKIP publicity boost from the Euros is likely to have pushed Con to UKIP switchers.
3. The fading of the Euro boost for the Greens may be helping Labour.
The comforting thing for the Conservatives is that these are generally likely to be short term effects - so would expect to see the polls drift closer again particularly if Newark bursts UKIPs bubble.
I don't get the bubble burst argument.
Sure, in terms of media stories that may be so. And perhaps, at the margin, there are people who are just following a bandwagon in supporting UKIP / perhaps there will be some fair weather friends who get dispirited by the lack of progress.
But the fundamental reasons why people are supporting UKIP still exist. It will make it harder to grow, but why should the numbers deflate massively post a Newark loss?
People like supporting winning parties.
But the LibDems won the last election. After all they are in government for the first time in generations... ;-)
Clearly the 9 point lead is an outlier - but then we said the same about the YG 7 point lead too.
I think the improvement for Labour is to be expected given:
1. The implosion of the Lib Dems in the last week - this may have pushed more switchers to Labour.
2. The UKIP publicity boost from the Euros is likely to have pushed Con to UKIP switchers.
3. The fading of the Euro boost for the Greens may be helping Labour.
The comforting thing for the Conservatives is that these are generally likely to be short term effects - so would expect to see the polls drift closer again particularly if Newark bursts UKIPs bubble.
I don't get the bubble burst argument.
Sure, in terms of media stories that may be so. And perhaps, at the margin, there are people who are just following a bandwagon in supporting UKIP / perhaps there will be some fair weather friends who get dispirited by the lack of progress.
But the fundamental reasons why people are supporting UKIP still exist. It will make it harder to grow, but why should the numbers deflate massively post a Newark loss?
People like supporting winning parties.
But the LibDems won the last election. After all they are in government for the first time in generations... ;-)
And a Lib Dem nightmare GE is still probably higher than a dream UKIP result.
Needless to say, every man and his partisan dog scurrying around trying to find something positive from this afternoon's numbers or to say something negative about one of the parties they don't like.
That's not true. Some supporters of parties that have no good news at all from either poll are trying to change the conversation from the poll results to posters' reactions.
I'm guessing that any opinion poll contacts a sample of voters and aims to get a representative sample, so in crude terms if they got all their sample from a council estate or from a group of band H private houses you would not expect it to be representative so they get a good mix.
The problem is as I see it is that the mix will cut across "expected" lines. So (again crudely) if 50% of your poll was from the council estate and 50% from the band H houses you would get a reasonable tory/labour split.
Thats fine until a reasonable portion of the the council estate and Band H houses defect from their usual party to UKIP. How on earth do you work out which houses on the council estate will stick with labour and which houses in Band H stick with the tories. You could get a hunch and tailor questions to try and flush this out but I fear that getting this refined would take a long time (especially as the situation is fluid) which must make it a nightmare to work out.
I suspect this is why the two Newark polls vary so much and UKIP was underestimated at Eastleigh. And I suspect there is not much anyone can do about it, other than do what Rod has done to get a con majoirty of 667, which means that it is all to play for for both parties.
One thing I don;t understand is that the spiral of silence works in favour of the tories, presumably assuming people won't admit to voting tory. Won't there be far more not wanting to admit to voting UKIP after all the racism smears levied at them recently?
As to Labour softpedalling is a good strategy, with the smaller the tory majority the better, however it is high risk for labour if UKIP actually win, but on balance this would probably hurt tories more than Labour.
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
I suspect that Lord Ashcroft might ask for his money back for these polls.
Obviously the results are what they are, and I'm sure that the polling company is just reporting what they find, but I'd be surprised if the Tories had anything like the majority suggested in Newark, and Labour certainly wouldn't have the lead suggested if there was a GE now.
It seems to me that the rise of UKIP may well cause the polling companies some issues. Perhaps the rise of the SDP did too in the long distant past.
Of course my guessing is a far less reliable indicator than even the worst polls, but just this once I feel I may outsmart them!
I'm guessing that any opinion poll contacts a sample of voters and aims to get a representative sample, so in crude terms if they got all their sample from a council estate or from a group of band H private houses you would not expect it to be representative so they get a good mix.
The problem is as I see it is that the mix will cut across "expected" lines. So (again crudely) if 50% of your poll was from the council estate and 50% from the band H houses you would get a reasonable tory/labour split.
Thats fine until a reasonable portion of the the council estate and Band H houses defect from their usual party to UKIP. How on earth do you work out which houses on the council estate will stick with labour and which houses in Band H stick with the tories. You could get a hunch and tailor questions to try and flush this out but I fear that getting this refined would take a long time (especially as the situation is fluid) which must make it a nightmare to work out.
I suspect this is why the two Newark polls vary so much and UKIP was underestimated at Eastleigh. And I suspect there is not much anyone can do about it, other than do what Rod has done to get a con majoirty of 667, which means that it is all to play for for both parties.
One thing I don;t understand is that the spiral of silence works in favour of the tories, presumably assuming people won't admit to voting tory. Won't there be far more not wanting to admit to voting UKIP after all the racism smears levied at them recently?
As to Labour softpedalling is a good strategy, with the smaller the tory majority the better, however it is high risk for labour if UKIP actually win, but on balance this would probably hurt tories more than Labour.
It originally favoured the Tories, at one point it was benefiting Labour (this is talking about ICM's methodology where they've previously found people not wanting to admit they're sticking with the party they voted for last time), it's benefiting the Lib Dems at the moment (off the top of my head, I haven't looked so it may well be benefiting one of the others).
As to whether people are under-reporting their UKIP preference, possible but on what evidence? Most of the polls at the Euros overstated UKIP (although of course there's a lot of moving parts in all that so might be down to something else).
(As for the sample building question, you randomise your contacts within the guidelines you have and reckon on getting a proportionate mix. If you keep selecting randomly with a large enough sample you'll get a good mix and the results are fairly close then you're on the right lines.
The other thing to remember about Newark is that UKIP appear to be polling about 6% higher nationally now than in the run-up to Eastleigh. (around 15.4% versus 9.5%, average of final week's polling)
Cant imagine the Newark poll can be so badly wrong this close to the election.. 15% in front means the Tories are over the line I reckon.
Regarding the debates.. if UKIP finish 2nd in this by election that will be 6 out of the last 7 that they have been runner up. Throw in the win at the Euros and it is ridiculous to disallow them on the basis of past electoral performance
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
EdM is less repulsive than France's Hollande. If Hollande can win then so can Ed.
Cant imagine the Newark poll can be so badly wrong this close to the election.. 15% in front means the Tories are over the line I reckon.
Regarding the debates.. if UKIP finish 2nd in this by election that will be 6 out of the last 7 that they have been runner up. Throw in the win at the Euros and it is ridiculous to disallow them on the basis of past electoral performance
The rules are clear that it is the last GE that matters.
Those rules may be daft, but you should have fought them before they were set.
Cant imagine the Newark poll can be so badly wrong this close to the election.. 15% in front means the Tories are over the line I reckon.
Regarding the debates.. if UKIP finish 2nd in this by election that will be 6 out of the last 7 that they have been runner up. Throw in the win at the Euros and it is ridiculous to disallow them on the basis of past electoral performance
Unless the Electoral Commission change their criteria it's likely to happen.
(I did try to find out the guidelines from when the SDP were emerging but didn't have any luck).
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
EdM is less repulsive than France's Hollande. If Hollande can win then so can Ed.
The French are showing a great deal of buyers remorse though.
I am not being funny, but if Farage were to take part in a televised debate, only part of it would be on his strong suite. The other sections will leave him trying to bridge the gap between two disparate ends of the political spectrum. A balancing act that he might achieve, but which will be difficult. His ideal option would probably be as the "unfairly excluded" outsider?
I am not being funny, but if Farage were to take part in a televised debate, only part of it would be on his strong suite. The other sections will leave him trying to bridge the gap between two disparate ends of the political spectrum. A balancing act that he might achieve, but which will be difficult. His ideal option would probably be as the "unfairly excluded" outsider?
To be honest you are probably right
If UKIP are polling 15-20% in the run up to the GE, and the broadcasters and other parties dont allow them in then any anti establishment feeling that is around will stiffen and it will probably help them.
But I honestly dont ever try to spin on here, I just say what I think is correct and fair, and if it were the greens in UKIPs position I would say the same thing.
I am not being funny, but if Farage were to take part in a televised debate, only part of it would be on his strong suite. The other sections will leave him trying to bridge the gap between two disparate ends of the political spectrum. A balancing act that he might achieve, but which will be difficult. His ideal option would probably be as the "unfairly excluded" outsider?
I agree entirely, though he could probably get further than we think by just criticising the big parties - in 4 way debates he'd only have to speak for 20 minutes or so.
Cant imagine the Newark poll can be so badly wrong this close to the election.. 15% in front means the Tories are over the line I reckon.
Regarding the debates.. if UKIP finish 2nd in this by election that will be 6 out of the last 7 that they have been runner up. Throw in the win at the Euros and it is ridiculous to disallow them on the basis of past electoral performance
11% in front before the spiral of silence adjustment. Personally I think it'll be closer to 11% than 15%.
@currystar Pretend jobs? Stacking shelves for dole money? Becoming "self" employed" as a way of avoiding ever more stringent JSA requirements, while still being funded by the tax payer? Working for the minimum wage while companies are subsidised to employ, and shoving the bulk of their tax liabilities off shore? As for the much vaunted increase in wages you seem so keen on, even a cursory glance at who has become richer since the crash, and those left behind, points to the reason you would be daft to vote for TINA, and more of the same. Unless of course these policies advantage yourself personally?
Its so sad when people use envy and personalise stuff.
Capitalism is not perfect, but its what we have
Why do people cheer Wayne Rooneys name each week when he earns the national average annual wage for just 12 hours work yet become irate when their neighbor buys a better car than them or someone gets a bigger bonus than them. Its just human nature.
You do realise that under the previous Labour Government the gap between the rich and poor widened tremendously and under this tory led government the gap has shrunk. how can that be?
My personal situation is not important, but please be assured I earn a lot less than a Diversity Programme Manager at a London Borough. You do not have to be rich or earn lots of money to realise what is best for the Country. Labour most certainly are not.
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
EdM is less repulsive than France's Hollande. If Hollande can win then so can Ed.
You were suggesting that they'd get less than Brown just a while back. Make your mind up.
Though the Crossover-gasm was over cooked somewhat.
Only three pollsters have shown crossover, and only once, and all bar one have now reverted to Lab leads.
IIRC
True. But even if lab leads lengthens from now till Christmas, tories can take comfort from the fact that the lab mini-collapse was strongly correlated with the run-up to national elections. There is a whole heap of comfort in that thought.
Take comfort in what you like.
Even at the height of crossover hysteria Labour would have been by far the largest party.
"Capitalism is not perfect, but its what we have" This is the point of my argument. You feel you are a victim of envy? But those at the bottom that have been vilified by government and the press fully deserve it? The last Labour government I have already criticized for their blind adherence to the idiocy of continuing M.Thatchers insane economic ideas. Your personal circumstances are of no more concern to me that anyone else's, but pointing out some of the inconsistencies in your position might spark a useful internal debate (something we all require) Have you worked out the shortcomings of Universal Credit vis a vis self employment and small business? Bearing in mind that IDS has thought about the problem for many years, and is considered by many on this blog to be an infallible genius, these problems must be pre-planned and intentional?
I am not being funny, but if Farage were to take part in a televised debate, only part of it would be on his strong suite. The other sections will leave him trying to bridge the gap between two disparate ends of the political spectrum. A balancing act that he might achieve, but which will be difficult. His ideal option would probably be as the "unfairly excluded" outsider?
I'm not sure I agree that it would be such a difficult balancing act. The reason that UKIP is picking up support is because the other three parties are so close together. All Farage has to do is sound distinct from them and attractive to the 35% or so who might consider voting for them. A populist social conservatism bridges the gap nicely between the (ex-)Tory right and the WWC left.
On topic, a dreadful national poll for the Tories and Lib Dems, a decent one for Labour and an excellent one for UKIP. This summer really will prove critical for all the parties. If UKIP can maintain their momentum through to September, we could be in for the start of a realignment the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1920s. If not, it's more a modern version of the 1970s.
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
EdM is less repulsive than France's Hollande. If Hollande can win then so can Ed.
The French are showing a great deal of buyers remorse though.
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
EdM is less repulsive than France's Hollande. If Hollande can win then so can Ed.
The French are showing a great deal of buyers remorse though.
@david_herdson I did say the "balancing act" was possible, but unless he was very careful, and managed to keep things vague (which in itself could be a minus), he could lose more than he gained by instead remaining the "anti politic" outsider, refused entry by the vested interests of the major parties
@david_herdson I did say the "balancing act" was possible, but unless he was very careful, and managed to keep things vague (which in itself could be a minus), he could lose more than he gained by instead remaining the "anti politic" outsider, refused entry by the vested interests of the major parties
I disagree. Farage and UKIP's key asset is *not* being a balancing act which is terrified of upsetting people. The one advantage of being disliked by as many as UKIP are, is that you don't have to pander to them. Telling it 'as it is' (which isn't actually as it is but as many believe it to be), is unlikely to do him any harm in net terms. If he tries to keep it vague, he'll end up sounding like all the rest, giving "politicians' answers", which indeed you acknowledge.
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Five years after the crash, and with an up coming general election combined with the real possibility of further fines imposed on our financial system, George decides to make a move.
Yes - 36% to No - 54% (40: 60 when undecideds removed).
Strong swing to Yes from last IPSOS MORI poll.
Just to save time.
Blair McDougall @blairmcdougall 51m NEW IPSOS POLL - 100 days to go and 20 points behind. Not good enough for Alex Salmond's independence campaign. #indyref
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
The Conservatives will be. I doubt post will be used other than in extremis. Addressed letters can be delivered by hand if you have a few hundred activists.
I'm writing a thread and I'm absolutely buggered to come up with an explanation for two divergent bits of polling.
I'm using YouGov as a base, the most accurate pollster when it came to the Euros, as UKIP have risen, for most of this parliament, those wanting to leave the EU have led those wanting to remain, yet this year, remain in the EU have started to lead those who want to leave.
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
Southam - you have kinda bought FatSteve's line there.
It was a messaging issue - We have seen polling that shows Ed is not much of a drag on the ticket per se. Undoubtably Cam is more popular, but that seems to be priced in.
This poll leaves me slightly saddened but fairly smug.
I did say from the start that the Tories would not lose Newark. In spite of what some might claim it is certainly not natural UKIP territory and I do not believe there was ever a chance of the winning here. I think that they were additionally hampered by their choice of candidate but I am almost of the opinion that no matter who they chose this would be a Tory hold.
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Do you think they are going to put themselves in a position where they would have to re-run the by-election...?
I'm writing a thread and I'm absolutely buggered to come up with an explanation for two divergent bits of polling.
I'm using YouGov as a base, the most accurate pollster when it came to the Euros, as UKIP have risen, for most of this parliament, those wanting to leave the EU have led those wanting to remain, yet this year, remain in the EU have started to lead those who want to leave.
I'm writing a thread and I'm absolutely buggered to come up with an explanation for two divergent bits of polling.
I'm using YouGov as a base, the most accurate pollster when it came to the Euros, as UKIP have risen, for most of this parliament, those wanting to leave the EU have led those wanting to remain, yet this year, remain in the EU have started to lead those who want to leave.
UKIP are polarising. As they attract more supporters, they attract more opponents, cf Peter Kellner's observations about UKIP's much greater unpopularity with the unaffiliated:
By making the anti-EU cause about UKIP, the kipperphobes by default become more pro-European.
Also, UKIP bangs on about immigration. The public are concerned about this, but are concerned about the economy more. Daniel Hannan argues that by making their arguments all about immigration, they are failing effectively to dispel the economic arguments being put forward by pro-Europeans:
I'm writing a thread and I'm absolutely buggered to come up with an explanation for two divergent bits of polling.
I'm using YouGov as a base, the most accurate pollster when it came to the Euros, as UKIP have risen, for most of this parliament, those wanting to leave the EU have led those wanting to remain, yet this year, remain in the EU have started to lead those who want to leave.
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Do you think they are going to put themselves in a position where they would have to re-run the by-election...?
Whichever party wins will find their expenses under close scrutiny by the second placed party. With lots of incomers it must be hard for the agents to have close control over spending. Expect the Conservatives to have a better system.
I am left wondering why Better Together didn't have Jacob Rees Mogg leadaing them. I reckon they would have done a hell of a lot better than they have done with Darling.
I just can't see the Tories winning Newark. Winning by-elections - especially whilst in government - just isn't something the Tories do. But, setting that aside, if Labour does come third then surely Miliband will be praying for a Tory win. If UKIP win then Labour will effectively be finished as the official party of opposition.
Folk I talk to worry about mass immigration. That's an issue that can be solved in multiple ways - not solely by leaving the EU.
Given how muddled peoples' overall political philosophies can be, I don't find it much of a stretch to imagine that UKIP's immigration stance resonates even with those with no particular animus to the EU in the round.
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
@OwenJones84: It'll be such an unlikely upset if the Tories lose Newark that I'll run through Leicester Square naked singing Lady Gaga's 'Born This Way'
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
I just can't see the Tories winning Newark. Winning by-elections - especially whilst in government - just isn't something the Tories do. But, setting that aside, if Labour does come third then surely Miliband will be praying for a Tory win. If UKIP win then Labour will effectively be finished as the official party of opposition.
UKIP can't win Newark, they need a swing the size of Christchurch 1993 and Helmer will never attract the Labour voters needed to do it.
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
They haven't done enough canvassing to know which those are.
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
Southam - you have kinda bought FatSteve's line there.
It was a messaging issue - We have seen polling that shows Ed is not much of a drag on the ticket per se. Undoubtably Cam is more popular, but that seems to be priced in.
Waffle. (What does that "per se" contribute to the sentence?)
It gives me no pleasure to say so, but the frivolous and vindictive have their knives out and ed is crap/fuck off beaker/bacon sandwich attacks on ed are what are going to cost Lab a majority.
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Cons using free labour - team 2015.
Yep, most likely delivered by hand. The only cost would be the printing.
@rosschawkins: Lab MP fmr Ed Mili aide John Denham: For the foreseeable future, it would be better if fewer EU migrants came here http://t.co/a1heYbfjCq
Quite. All but one of the leaflets etc through the door have been hand-delivered or were the Freepost.
There will also be the usual 'friendly printer with one invoice for the expenses and one for something else not related to the election, oh no' tricks.
Quite. All but one of the leaflets etc through the door have been hand-delivered or were the Freepost.
There will also be the usual 'friendly printer with one invoice for the expenses and one for something else not related to the election, oh no' tricks.
Dry your eyes dear - you might smear your mascara too !
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Cons using free labour - team 2015.
One party source told me there were over six Tory hundred volunteers in Newark at the weekend. That's enough to not just deliver the entire constituency by hand but to canvass a fair proportion of it. (I accept that it's only one source but I don't think he's prone to hyperbole).
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
Farage selecting Helmer to run in Newark was designed to consolidate the power of the party leader by eliminating a threat and rival.
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Do you think they are going to put themselves in a position where they would have to re-run the by-election...?
Whichever party wins will find their expenses under close scrutiny by the second placed party. With lots of incomers it must be hard for the agents to have close control over spending. Expect the Conservatives to have a better system.
How would spending that is not reimbursed be counted?
Ie Random activist spends £x while helping campaign. Tries for reimbursement and is rejected because it wasn't authorised by the local campaign team.
Would seem harsh to count that against the total for the party spend as was unauthorised - but equally could be a loophole?
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Do you think they are going to put themselves in a position where they would have to re-run the by-election...?
Whichever party wins will find their expenses under close scrutiny by the second placed party. With lots of incomers it must be hard for the agents to have close control over spending. Expect the Conservatives to have a better system.
How would spending that is not reimbursed be counted?
Ie Random activist spends £x while helping campaign. Tries for reimbursement and is rejected because it wasn't authorised by the local campaign team.
Would seem harsh to count that against the total for the party spend as was unauthorised - but equally could be a loophole?
What Fox said. UKIP has a specific FPTP problem: lots of supporters, but a majority who really don't like them, and rally round their main opponents. And to be fair, the Tories have managed a spectacularly good turnout on the ground.
@AFergussonMSP: Strathclyde Commission report published - STV poll at 60% - 40% against Indy - cybernats going ballistic - all is right with the world!!
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that "The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
Cons using free labour - team 2015.
One party source told me there were over six Tory hundred volunteers in Newark at the weekend. That's enough to not just deliver the entire constituency by hand but to canvass a fair proportion of it. (I accept that it's only one source but I don't think he's prone to hyperbole).
Wasn't that when all Conservative PPCs were ordered to be in the constituency to 'volunteer' (and ConHome reported many were less than happy about the short notice etc)
I'm writing a thread and I'm absolutely buggered to come up with an explanation for two divergent bits of polling.
I'm using YouGov as a base, the most accurate pollster when it came to the Euros, as UKIP have risen, for most of this parliament, those wanting to leave the EU have led those wanting to remain, yet this year, remain in the EU have started to lead those who want to leave.
Didn't support for Brexit peak during Eurogeddon? If so it should have been drifting down since Eurogeddon dropped out of the news. And if so the most likely Ukip effect over the last year or so would have been to slow down the decline.
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
Farage selecting Helmer to run in Newark was designed to consolidate the power of the party leader by eliminating a threat and rival.
A 21st century variant of a Stalinist purge.
Are you predicting a public recantation at which Helmer reveals that he was in the pay of the tories all along?
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
Farage selecting Helmer to run in Newark was designed to consolidate the power of the party leader by eliminating a threat and rival.
A 21st century variant of a Stalinist purge.
Yes, that must be why he was number one on the regional list for the Euros as well.
Quite. All but one of the leaflets etc through the door have been hand-delivered or were the Freepost.
There will also be the usual 'friendly printer with one invoice for the expenses and one for something else not related to the election, oh no' tricks.
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
Farage selecting Helmer to run in Newark was designed to consolidate the power of the party leader by eliminating a threat and rival.
A 21st century variant of a Stalinist purge.
Are you predicting a public recantation at which Helmer reveals that he was in the pay of the tories all along?
Labour's apparent regrouping in the opinion polls rather reinforces my impression that EdM is a very active negative factor for the party. Now he is not on the telly so much people say they will vote Labour again. The problem for Labour is that he is going to be on telly a lot in 11 months time.
Southam - you have kinda bought FatSteve's line there.
It was a messaging issue - We have seen polling that shows Ed is not much of a drag on the ticket per se. Undoubtably Cam is more popular, but that seems to be priced in.
Waffle. (What does that "per se" contribute to the sentence?)
It gives me no pleasure to say so, but the frivolous and vindictive have their knives out and ed is crap/fuck off beaker/bacon sandwich attacks on ed are what are going to cost Lab a majority.
Labour NOM is already favourite. As I say, it's priced in.
What I meant by per se was that while someone else might do better, they are not currently an MP. As for David - would have been the wrong choice, and may have split the party.
I'll leave the fuck off beaker idiocy to the twitter morons. I wouldn't wish them on anyone, Tory, Labour or Liberal.
Incidentally, I see Labour has been more visible than UKIP in Newark, according to the poll - more contact, more leaflets, more poters, more canvassing. UKIP has the edge only on "more personally addressed letters". Surprisingly different from the public (and indeed private) reports.
I'm writing a thread and I'm absolutely buggered to come up with an explanation for two divergent bits of polling.
I'm using YouGov as a base, the most accurate pollster when it came to the Euros, as UKIP have risen, for most of this parliament, those wanting to leave the EU have led those wanting to remain, yet this year, remain in the EU have started to lead those who want to leave.
Support for leaving the EU is far higher than support for UKIP. The flip-floppers on Europe are supporters of other parties that have gone to war on UKIP, and fallen for Cameron et al's scare stories.
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
Farage selecting Helmer to run in Newark was designed to consolidate the power of the party leader by eliminating a threat and rival.
A 21st century variant of a Stalinist purge.
Are you predicting a public recantation at which Helmer reveals that he was in the pay of the tories all along?
A sort of 'Alexandra' Swan[n] event?
Or a show trial?
Yes, more the show trial I was thinking of. They would enliven our politics more than a leaders' debate would.
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
Farage selecting Helmer to run in Newark was designed to consolidate the power of the party leader by eliminating a threat and rival.
A 21st century variant of a Stalinist purge.
One of your rather more moronic statements Avery.. and that is up against some pretty stiff competition I can tell you.
Channel 4 do like sending Mogg to places where you'd assume he wouldn't be comfortable!
My view has changed. A couple of years ago he'd have been behind Nadine Dorries to become important in any sense. At that time she was trailing (and still is) David Icke.
Now though I actually think rather highly of him.
Just for the hell of it I've just backed him with a rather small percentage of the Omnium fund for next Tory leader. So I'm afraid I've rather scuppered the fun for those that hang on my every word.
Whilst doing that I notice that Theresa May is being backed at as short as 5.8. I'm no fool, so I've happily layed that, and the 6.8s. I wonder if it's any of you trying to back her?
One fairly fascinating finding in the Ashcroft National poll, was that in a poll where Labour are 9 points ahead, the proposition: "Do you think the country would be better off if we had had a Labour Government since 2010" got "Worse Off" leading "Better Off" by 10% (34/24).
Admittedly, the "No better or worse off" option led on 36%, but that's still not exactly a ringing endorsement for Labour - in a poll where they'd expect a landslide victory on the support shares.
Heck, fewer than half of 2010 Labour voters thought that the country would have been better off under Labour.
(The "Would you and your family personally have been better off or worse off under Labour" question still got a thumbs down for Labour, with 31% "Worse off" to 25% "Better off" and still under half of the 2010 Labour voters thinking that they themselves would have been better off under Labour).
Also watching C4+1 it strikes me that Ken Clarke really shouldn't be trundled out by the Tories. He's so much yesterday's man - ok well yesterday's nearly man.
I know very little about asbestos in any form but I have to say that reading that HSE statement I would suggest your comment that "science leaves little room for opinions." is misleading in the extreme.
The statement is filled with qualifications and comments about how little is known about the threat of white asbestos at levels normally encountered in buildings. They make a very clear distinction between white and blue varieties and seem to be implying that the main reason for precautions is "the existing regulations for asbestos in the workplace require that where the type of fibre cannot be identified, it must be assumed that the more hazardous forms of asbestos are present."
I would suggest you should do your research a little more thoroughly before criticising politicians.
Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
Farage selecting Helmer to run in Newark was designed to consolidate the power of the party leader by eliminating a threat and rival.
A 21st century variant of a Stalinist purge.
Yes, that must be why he was number one on the regional list for the Euros as well.
Now, now, David.
In 1926, Stalin appointed Sergei Mironovich Kirov to be party leader in Leningrad. And look what happend to Kirov: ended up six foot under with a ballet named after him.
The parallel with UKIP is striking. In the 1934 CPSU Party Congress,
Kirov [...] suggested he wanted to see a more relaxed approach in the future. [A] lover of the good life and a hardened drinker who would even swear in public, [Kirov] was also highly popular with party cadres who saw this style as a welcome alternative to the increasingly (in public, at least) austere regime promoted by Stalin.
So what was all that pole dancing in Brussels about?
Comments
The problem is as I see it is that the mix will cut across "expected" lines. So (again crudely) if 50% of your poll was from the council estate and 50% from the band H houses you would get a reasonable tory/labour split.
Thats fine until a reasonable portion of the the council estate and Band H houses defect from their usual party to UKIP. How on earth do you work out which houses on the council estate will stick with labour and which houses in Band H stick with the tories. You could get a hunch and tailor questions to try and flush this out but I fear that getting this refined would take a long time (especially as the situation is fluid) which must make it a nightmare to work out.
I suspect this is why the two Newark polls vary so much and UKIP was underestimated at Eastleigh. And I suspect there is not much anyone can do about it, other than do what Rod has done to get a con majoirty of 667, which means that it is all to play for for both parties.
One thing I don;t understand is that the spiral of silence works in favour of the tories, presumably assuming people won't admit to voting tory. Won't there be far more not wanting to admit to voting UKIP after all the racism smears levied at them recently?
As to Labour softpedalling is a good strategy, with the smaller the tory majority the better, however it is high risk for labour if UKIP actually win, but on balance this would probably hurt tories more than Labour.
Obviously the results are what they are, and I'm sure that the polling company is just reporting what they find, but I'd be surprised if the Tories had anything like the majority suggested in Newark, and Labour certainly wouldn't have the lead suggested if there was a GE now.
It seems to me that the rise of UKIP may well cause the polling companies some issues. Perhaps the rise of the SDP did too in the long distant past.
Of course my guessing is a far less reliable indicator than even the worst polls, but just this once I feel I may outsmart them!
And Clegg making a whole new set of promises to the electorate, alongside his bosom buddy "Cast Iron Cameron"?
Hmmm, might prove interesting?
As to whether people are under-reporting their UKIP preference, possible but on what evidence? Most of the polls at the Euros overstated UKIP (although of course there's a lot of moving parts in all that so might be down to something else).
(As for the sample building question, you randomise your contacts within the guidelines you have and reckon on getting a proportionate mix. If you keep selecting randomly with a large enough sample you'll get a good mix and the results are fairly close then you're on the right lines.
Regarding the debates.. if UKIP finish 2nd in this by election that will be 6 out of the last 7 that they have been runner up. Throw in the win at the Euros and it is ridiculous to disallow them on the basis of past electoral performance
Those rules may be daft, but you should have fought them before they were set.
(I did try to find out the guidelines from when the SDP were emerging but didn't have any luck).
I am not being funny, but if Farage were to take part in a televised debate, only part of it would be on his strong suite.
The other sections will leave him trying to bridge the gap between two disparate ends of the political spectrum. A balancing act that he might achieve, but which will be difficult.
His ideal option would probably be as the "unfairly excluded" outsider?
If UKIP are polling 15-20% in the run up to the GE, and the broadcasters and other parties dont allow them in then any anti establishment feeling that is around will stiffen and it will probably help them.
But I honestly dont ever try to spin on here, I just say what I think is correct and fair, and if it were the greens in UKIPs position I would say the same thing.
Capitalism is not perfect, but its what we have
Why do people cheer Wayne Rooneys name each week when he earns the national average annual wage for just 12 hours work yet become irate when their neighbor buys a better car than them or someone gets a bigger bonus than them. Its just human nature.
You do realise that under the previous Labour Government the gap between the rich and poor widened tremendously and under this tory led government the gap has shrunk. how can that be?
My personal situation is not important, but please be assured I earn a lot less than a Diversity Programme Manager at a London Borough. You do not have to be rich or earn lots of money to realise what is best for the Country. Labour most certainly are not.
Make your mind up.
Even at the height of crossover hysteria Labour would have been by far the largest party.
http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/06/watch-ed-balls-handshake-left-hanging-voter-newark-supermarket
"Capitalism is not perfect, but its what we have"
This is the point of my argument.
You feel you are a victim of envy? But those at the bottom that have been vilified by government and the press fully deserve it?
The last Labour government I have already criticized for their blind adherence to the idiocy of continuing M.Thatchers insane economic ideas.
Your personal circumstances are of no more concern to me that anyone else's, but pointing out some of the inconsistencies in your position might spark a useful internal debate (something we all require)
Have you worked out the shortcomings of Universal Credit vis a vis self employment and small business?
Bearing in mind that IDS has thought about the problem for many years, and is considered by many on this blog to be an infallible genius, these problems must be pre-planned and intentional?
Me and my Gf are back online and can now give you a Channel 4 news update-
Channel 4 News Update-
1) Victims are targeted by having a Russian only keyboard [Crim is a 21C crim]
2) Pics - Pie [literal] on keyboard
3) Other things 1910
Yes - 36% to No - 54% (40: 60 when undecideds removed).
Strong swing to Yes from last IPSOS MORI poll.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646391/Blow-Farage-Tories-installed-runaway-favourites-Newark-election-puts-15-ahead-UKIP.html
I did say the "balancing act" was possible, but unless he was very careful, and managed to keep things vague (which in itself could be a minus), he could lose more than he gained by instead remaining the "anti politic" outsider, refused entry by the vested interests of the major parties
The Electoral Commission has set an expense limit of £100,000 for parliamentary by-elections.
I wonder if the Conservative and UKIP agents are keeping count of what they have spent so far.
Ashcroft reports that
"The evidence from my poll is that the Tories have had the better of an intense ground war and have by no means taken the seat for granted. More than nine out of ten voters say they have heard from the Conservatives locally, including 81 per cent who have had literature through the door; nearly half have received personally addressed mail. Eight in ten say they have heard from UKIP; the party is reported to be slightly more active than Labour in all elements of the local campaign."
An 'intense ground war' sounds like an expensive ground war to me. Personally addressed mail could be expensive if sent by post to 35,000 households or worse if it's 70,000 electors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27662623
The boys genius knows no beginning until impending trouble makes action inevitable.
Blair McDougall @blairmcdougall 51m
NEW IPSOS POLL - 100 days to go and 20 points behind. Not good enough for Alex Salmond's independence campaign. #indyref
'Alex Salmond's independence campaign'.
Snigger.
I'm writing a thread and I'm absolutely buggered to come up with an explanation for two divergent bits of polling.
I'm using YouGov as a base, the most accurate pollster when it came to the Euros, as UKIP have risen, for most of this parliament, those wanting to leave the EU have led those wanting to remain, yet this year, remain in the EU have started to lead those who want to leave.
Anyone got any ideas
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/i9z8ad3nkw/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Europe-Referendum-300514.pdf
It was a messaging issue - We have seen polling that shows Ed is not much of a drag on the ticket per se. Undoubtably Cam is more popular, but that seems to be priced in.
I did say from the start that the Tories would not lose Newark. In spite of what some might claim it is certainly not natural UKIP territory and I do not believe there was ever a chance of the winning here. I think that they were additionally hampered by their choice of candidate but I am almost of the opinion that no matter who they chose this would be a Tory hold.
Will be the evening thread.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/06/02/five-myths-about-ukips-victory/
By making the anti-EU cause about UKIP, the kipperphobes by default become more pro-European.
Also, UKIP bangs on about immigration. The public are concerned about this, but are concerned about the economy more. Daniel Hannan argues that by making their arguments all about immigration, they are failing effectively to dispel the economic arguments being put forward by pro-Europeans:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100270107/if-it-comes-down-to-immigration-versus-investment-eurosceptics-will-lose/
(my thanks to another Dave for bringing this article to my attention)
Jacob Reese-Mogg on #indyref
1) The UKIP vote is being driven by objections to non EU immigration at least as much as by EU immigration.
2) UKIP are so divisive that they have forced a number off the fence on the EU, now coming to be pro EU so as to give two fingers to Farage.
3) My father is not alone in being a pro EU kipper!
Whichever party wins will find their expenses under close scrutiny by the second placed party. With lots of incomers it must be hard for the agents to have close control over spending. Expect the Conservatives to have a better system.
Many thanks.
My summary, straight from Planet Anecdote:
Folk I talk to worry about mass immigration. That's an issue that can be solved in multiple ways - not solely by leaving the EU.
Given how muddled peoples' overall political philosophies can be, I don't find it much of a stretch to imagine that UKIP's immigration stance resonates even with those with no particular animus to the EU in the round.
It gives me no pleasure to say so, but the frivolous and vindictive have their knives out and ed is crap/fuck off beaker/bacon sandwich attacks on ed are what are going to cost Lab a majority.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2002/e02010.htm
Amongst men UKIP has 5% lead. Amongst women it is 25% behind.
There will also be the usual 'friendly printer with one invoice for the expenses and one for something else not related to the election, oh no' tricks.
- less susceptible to the message
- more susceptible to the negative media pressure
- more liable to fib because of media pressure
?
edit: if it was option 3 i think there would also be a lot more female don't knows so that might cancel that possibility
A 21st century variant of a Stalinist purge.
Ie Random activist spends £x while helping campaign. Tries for reimbursement and is rejected because it wasn't authorised by the local campaign team.
Would seem harsh to count that against the total for the party spend as was unauthorised - but equally could be a loophole?
https://twitter.com/AlexandralSwann
You seem somewhat cynical about it.
Or a show trial?
What I meant by per se was that while someone else might do better, they are not currently an MP. As for David - would have been the wrong choice, and may have split the party.
I'll leave the fuck off beaker idiocy to the twitter morons. I wouldn't wish them on anyone, Tory, Labour or Liberal.
Now though I actually think rather highly of him.
Just for the hell of it I've just backed him with a rather small percentage of the Omnium fund for next Tory leader. So I'm afraid I've rather scuppered the fun for those that hang on my every word.
Whilst doing that I notice that Theresa May is being backed at as short as 5.8. I'm no fool, so I've happily layed that, and the 6.8s. I wonder if it's any of you trying to back her?
Admittedly, the "No better or worse off" option led on 36%, but that's still not exactly a ringing endorsement for Labour - in a poll where they'd expect a landslide victory on the support shares.
Heck, fewer than half of 2010 Labour voters thought that the country would have been better off under Labour.
(The "Would you and your family personally have been better off or worse off under Labour" question still got a thumbs down for Labour, with 31% "Worse off" to 25% "Better off" and still under half of the 2010 Labour voters thinking that they themselves would have been better off under Labour).
The statement is filled with qualifications and comments about how little is known about the threat of white asbestos at levels normally encountered in buildings. They make a very clear distinction between white and blue varieties and seem to be implying that the main reason for precautions is "the existing regulations for asbestos in the workplace require that where the type of fibre cannot be identified, it must be assumed that the more hazardous forms of asbestos are present."
I would suggest you should do your research a little more thoroughly before criticising politicians.
In 1926, Stalin appointed Sergei Mironovich Kirov to be party leader in Leningrad. And look what happend to Kirov: ended up six foot under with a ballet named after him.
The parallel with UKIP is striking. In the 1934 CPSU Party Congress,
Kirov [...] suggested he wanted to see a more relaxed approach in the future. [A] lover of the good life and a hardened drinker who would even swear in public, [Kirov] was also highly popular with party cadres who saw this style as a welcome alternative to the increasingly (in public, at least) austere regime promoted by Stalin.
So what was all that pole dancing in Brussels about?